Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-11-03

30 eae e tAe eime Banaeste1 q donh. q
TIE eons1ilnliuasiify q the Efntnie.
and i Bas regarded bah u fhs Terri
totial e0aEts aad here e Furnishing {
. FterzE r1ls 90 b observed b the terri
.oEiel court b impaneIlinR a impsr.
tial isFg 10 q criminal cas-.
pzaann % sEnlurRns
Il ne eouEt thea reviewed fully ths
proceedings Of lba State Couft II the
examinzfipD e 9nroFn Denktr and San
ford ald sustained Ne rulings q Judas
. Garry q he matter tsuehinR tha chal-
lsnEe q ths tuo Jurors b iAs defend
aIn he csse, Rsinolas ~ shs Ualtsd
States tse Q. 8, l45 % 1861 Il uas De-
reversal Of Ne fudemama of the SapRsne
| Court Of The TeEriaory of Utah fsr re-
fusina te allow challenges % 4 juror Ia
criminal case, On the Qroand rhat he
bad formed and expressed an opinioa
es 30 she issues 60 Be tried, Il mes Be
made olsaElg 70 appear that upon The
esidenes the court had fhe FtRht 10 have
foano that the iareR had formed such
40 cp11iou e1d that he oould Ia the Iaw
ba deemed Impartial. TIE casa nnsf
be ene II which, e i manifest, The Law
left nothing 70 tie eonscience or diasro.
ten Of the eouff. II snoh IL the
decree of stFictness which iB re-
CURED IL Ordinary cases % wKits
from ems court 30 another il the
same general iurisdirfion, We uoRht 10
b. careful that it Is not relaxed ii q
case like this. When 9he ground relied
upon FOR reversal By this court Of TIE
! Judgment Of the highest court OF Che
stats II that the error complained of isl
90 great as 10 amount 10 lac 70 Q denial
| b. the State Of trial by an inpartIal
1ury TO one who is aoeused Of crima. We
are unhasitaiinQiy az the opinion lhAt
no sneh case b disclosed by this record.
aPzzs a. A wExHxsA
awe come nov % consider the obieo-
sf0n thas d6fendant Hpiss wns compel
ed b the court 70 witness aaainsk him
gelf. BE voluntarily oEered himself aa
witness on bis Own behalf and hy 90 /
doing be became bound 90 sabmia hina- |
self 20 proper uross examination. The /
ccrFlsins d thai be vas required on 1
GROSS examination 20 state whether be |
had rsoslvsd certain letter, which vas /
shown purposina to have been written
by Johann Most and addressed 10 him,
ard upon his saying that be bsd the /
court allowed tie letter 10 be read IN
esidebes aReiust him. This Il 10 eiaim- /
cd wes not 4 proper oroas-examinatien.
Il is nct conten4ed that the subiect 10
which the crUsa examinatlon related
vas ncs pertinent 60 the issue 10 be
tried. And. whether croas-exam-
ticn is 10 be eonnneG Be- matter
psEtinent 70 the testimony In chief.
OF may be extended 10 the mat
lags II issue. u certainly q question Of
state Law N the the courts Of The state
and not In federal Law.
Something has been said In the ar. Il
gument about an alleged unreasonable
eearsh and seixum of The papers and |
propesty Of some dlsndanks, and their
use In evidence on the trial Of the case.
Special reference u made IN connection
to the letter Of Most, about which Spies
vas ercss-examined, bat we have bsen
referred 10 any part Of the record In
which it appears thas an obieetion was \
made to the use Of the evidence on that |
account, and upon this point the Super
ior Court of the State In that part ok it's /
opinion which has bean pointed out,
with reference 10 thls motion remarks 1
are as follows:
VIEW or TEE ILLTEoIs COURT.
"sThe objection that the letter was
obtained from the defendant By an un-
lawful seizure was made for the drst
time in this court. Il was not made on
the trial Ia the court below. Such an |
0bisoki0n az this which n not suggested /
BY the nature Of the offered evidence,
but depends upon the proof Of an out
side fact, should be made on she trial. i
The defendants should hnv6 proved shat
Most's letter was one OF the letters NE
eAlly seized by tbs police and should
then excluded or opposed its admission,
on the ground that II vas obtained By
such illegal seizure. This was not done
aud therefore we cannot consider the
constitutional question supposed 20 b6
Involved. IBdeed, the Fule Of the stat
ute Of Illinois, a. it was construed By
the trial court. Ia not materially diNeg-
ent from that which has BEEN adopted b.
the courts In msny Of the statea without
legislative action.
"Without pursuing ihissnbisct fuFth-
sg IL IL sufficient 20 say that We agree
entirely with the supreme court OF Aili-
nois Ii the opinion shat the statute on
its face as construed By that court u
not fspugnant 70 section nine article
kWO Oh t00 LN084IAH41NW Oh AAnA I084Lg
which guarantees 10 The accused party /
IN every criminal prosecution speedy
trial hy an impartial jury Of the county
OF disfrict ii Which ne oiEsnss Is az
legged 10 have bean committed. Ae this
is substantially the pregisiona OF the
constitution Of the Uniisd States on
which the petitioners nov rely, it tol.
lows that even II their pealtion as 10 |
the operation and s1ect ok the eonstita-
tion Is correct, the statute u not open
10 the objection which Is usde aRninss
ftn
no onyE0TToN WAS Mkpn-
Though the Oougt vas wrong Ia say
ing that Il did nol appear that the Most
letter vas one Of the papers illegally /
raixed. Il stiff rsmeinb unooutradi dieied /
that no objection uas made IN the trial Il
Court % its admission on that account
are give uB Jurisdiction rndef section |
100 Of the revised statutes, because OF q
denial made By . siate Court Of any /
title, right, privilege o. inmunisy claim |
ed under the Oonsaitution, or auy treaty |
or statute Of the United States, u must |
appear that s1oh titls, right, privileges
% itnmunity Was specially sss up o. /
claimed ct tina proper tina and 10 Q /
proper var. To Be feview8ble the de- |
cisisn mast be aealnss tbs right 80 sei |
up OF claimed, as TIE SupFsms Court Of /
the siate has reviewed the decision Of |
the Trial Oouxs, and 90 70 make TIE !
question FsgiswabIe here Il must appear |
fhat q claim uas made in that eourt be-
oauss tbe Supreme Court was TIE only |
authorized one 80 review fhe Judgment |
/ ef knak Oouff for errors committed
there ana ue can DO No more. This ie
NOT, as seems 70 Be- snppossd b o1e o.
the counsel for TIE petitioners. quss-
ton of waFer Of Fighs under ths Con
stitution, laws O treaiiss Of the UHised
Ssates. but 3 question Of clsln. which
II not 81 up o. claimed in the proper
court below she iuaement Of the State
Court in ths aokioD, b eonclusivs % fes
| e TIE EiRht Of rsyieg here b eoncetnsd.
Ths quessian Whistler tie lslteR o.